lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:53:41 +0100 From: Christian Grothoff <grothoff@...tum.de> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> CC: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, knock@...net.org, jacob@...elbaum.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP: add option for silent port knocking with integrity protection On 12/11/2013 10:25 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org> writes: >> >> The point is that doing it outside of TCP core is safer, less error prone >> and more flexible. > > Or to put the question differently: what hooks would be needed to make > this efficiently work in user space? > > It could be something like this: Firewall the port with forwarding the > SYN packets using nfqueue, check for the SYN having the right magic, > change a firewall rule, re-inject using nfqueue (not fully sure how > well that works) ... and then do the same for the first TCP packet with payload? And you seriously would consider that "safer" or "less error prone", starting with the design complexity? I mean, if this was a patch for GNU Hurd, I'd at least understand the strong urge to do everything in userspace... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists